Extending Human Resource Development Theory to the Judiciary Field; Theoretical Framework

Document Type : علمی - پژوهشی

Author

Human Resource Management Department, University of Tehran (Alborz Campus)

Abstract

Human resource development theory represents organizational human development in the general mean; this theory, with an interdisciplinary approach, includes various organizational contexts. The theoretical literature indicates the gradual expansion of the theory into the organizational contexts of private business, governmental and non-profit. This article examines the development of theory into a judicial context. The purpose of this article is to achieve a theoretical framework for human resource development in the field of justice. The study method is a review of the research literature, interviews with 9 academic and judicial experts and thematic analysis of data. The results of the analysis indicate that the legal solution patterns represent the theme of the judicial profession; and includes four models of adaptive, contextual, institutional, and critical. The models of legal solution are divided into two continuum: the importance of the judicial issue (normal to important) and the continuum of the goal of resolving the judicial issue (returning to the current legal order to create a new legal order); Therefore, they are classified into four adaptive, contextual, institutional and critical categories. This classification is a guide to the theoretical framework of judicial human resource development. The theoretical framework includes stabilization judicial human, evolutionary judicial human, institutionalist judicial human, and change-oriented judicial human.

Keywords

References

1. دانایی‌فرد، حسن (1396)، نظریه‎پردازی: مبانی و روش‎شناسی‎ها، تهران: سمت.
2. شیبم، پرلمان (1388)، «استدلال قضایی و منطق حقوقی، برگردان»، ترجمه حسن حبیبی، مجله دادنامه، شماره 1، ص10-5.
3. صادقمنش، جعفر و علی فرخی‎نیا (پاییز 1391)، «مبنا، روش و جایگاه استدلال قضایی»، مجله حقوقی دادگستری، شماره 79، ص238-213.
4. قوه قضاییه (1396)، «تأثیر ویژگی‌های شخصیتی در افزایش کارآیی دستگاه قضایی»، پیام آموزش قضایی، شماره 2، ص27−24.
5. Alagaraja, Meera and Githens, R. Patrick (2016), “Capacity and Capability Building for National HRD: A Multi-Level Conceptual Framework”, Human Resource Development Review, 15(1): 77–100.
6. Alvesson, Mats and Kärreman, Dan (2007), “Constructing Mystery: Empirical Matters in Theory Development”, the Academy of Management Review, 32(4): 1265–1281.
7. Appleby, Gabrielle; Burdon, Peter; and Reilly, Alexander (2013), “Critical Thinking in Legal Education: Our Journey”, Legal Education Review, 23(2); Article 6, pp 345-368.
8. Baek, Pyounggu and Kim. Namhee (2014), “Exploring a Theoretical Foundation for HRD in Society: Toward a Model of Stakeholder-Based HRD”, Human Resource Development International, 17 (5): 499–513.
9. Bierema, Laura. L., & Fenwick, Tara. J., (2005), “Defining critical human resource development”, Paper presented at the Academy of Human Resource Development Conference, Estes Park, and CO.
10. Blaikie, Norman (2000), Designing Social Research, the Logic of Anticipation, Cambridge Press.
11. Carlile, Paul. R., & Christensen, Clayton. M. (2006), the Cycles of Theory Building in Management Research, Working Knowledge, Harvard Business School.
12. Chalofsky, Neal (1992), “A Unifying Definition for Human Resource Development”, Human Resource Development Quarterly, 3, 175–182.
13. Clinton, Robert Lowry (2011), “Game Theory, Legal History, and the Origins of Judicial Review”, American Journal of Political Science, 38(2):
285–302.
14. Cohen, Morris, L. (1989), “the Common Law in the American Legal System: The Challenge of Conceptual Research”, Law Library Journal, 81(13), pp 13-33.
15. Colin, Edena and Fran, Ackermannb (2018), “Theory into Practice, Practice to Theory: Action Research in Method Development”, European Journal of Operational Research, 271(3):1145–1155.
16. Collins, Paul, M. (2008), “the Consistency of Judicial Choice”, Journal of Politics, 70(3): 861–873.
17. Conley, John M. (2009), “Can You talk Like a Lawyer and Still Think like a Human Being? Mertz’s The Language of Law School”, Law & Social Inquiry, 34(4): 983–1015.
18. Corley, Kevin G. and Gioia, Dennis A. (2011), “Building Theory about Theory Building: What Constitutes a Theoretical Contribution?” Academy of Management Review, 36 (1): 12–32.
19. Creswell, John. W. (2003), Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Methods Approaches (2nd Ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
20. DiMaggio, Paul. J. (1995), “Comments on “What theory is not” ”, Administrative Science Quarterly, 40: 391-396.
21. Dubin, Robert (1983) Theory Building, the University of Michigan, ISBN: 002907620X, 9780029076200.
22. Egan, T. Marshall (2002) Grounded Theory Research and Theory Building, Advances in Developing Human Resources, Vol 4, No 3,pp:277-295.
23. Garavan, Thomas N.; McGuire, David; O’Donnell, David (2004), “Exploring Human Resource Development: Levels of Analysis Approach”, Human Resource Development Review, 3(4): 417-441.
24. Genn, Dame, Hazel, Partington, Martin and Wheeler, Sally. (2006), Law in the Real World: Improving Our Understanding of How Law Works, London: Nuffield Foundation.
25. Ghosh, R., Kim, M., Kim, S., Callahan, J. L. (2014), “Examining the dominant, emerging, and waning themes featured in select HRD publications: Is it time to redefine HRD?”, European Journal of Training and Development, 38, 302-322.
26. Godfrey-Smith, Peter (2003), Theory and Reality: an Introduction to the Philosophy of Science, Chicago: university of Chicago press.
27. Gosney, M. W., & Hughes, C., (2016), the history of human resource development: Understanding the unexplored philosophies, theories, and methodologies, New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan.
28. Gray, John, C., (1997), Nature and the Sources of the Law (1909/21), Aldershot: Ashgate/Darthmouth. Quid Pro, LLC (July 8, 2012).
29. Groff, Ruth (2007), critical realism, post positivism and the possibility of knowledge, Routledge.
30. Grover, R (1986), “A Conceptual framework for theory building in library and information science”, library and information science research, 8, 227-242.
31. Guastini, Riccardo (2015), “A Realistic View on Law and Legal Cognition; Revus”, Journal for Constitutional theory and Philosophy of Law, 27, 45-54.
32. Hamlin, Bob and Stewart, Jim (2011), “What is HRD? “A definitional review and synthesis of the HRD domain”, Journal of European Industrial Training, 35 (3): 199-220.
33. Han, S. H., Chae, C., Han, S. J., & Yoon, S. W. (2017), “Conceptual organization and identity of HRD: Analyses of evolving definitions, influence, and connections”, Human Resource Development Review, 16, 294-319.
34. Hesse-Biber, Sharlene and Leavy, Particia (2004), Approaches to Qualitative Research: A Reader on Theory and Practice, London: Sage Publication.
35. Hibbert, P, Sillince, J, Diefenbach T, Cunliffe A. L (2014) Relationally Reflexive Practice: A Generative Approach to Theory Development in Qualitative Research, Organizational Research Methods, 17 (3), 278-298.
36. Hillyard, P. (2007), “Law’s empire: Socio‐legal empirical research in the twenty‐first century”, Journal of Law and Society, 34 (2): 266-279.  
37. Jaccard, James & Jacoby, Jacob (2010), Theory construction and model-building skills: A practical guide for social scientists, New York, NY: Guilford Press.
38. Jacobs, Ron. L. (1991), “Human resource development as an Interdisciplinary body of knowledge”, Human resource development quarterly, 1(1): 65-71.
39. Jacqueline, J. Rossignol (1992), Concepts, Methods, and Theory Building: Space, Time, and Archaeological Landscapes, New York, pp. 3-16.
40. James, Nickolas; Hughes, Clair; Cappa, Clare (2010), “Conceptualizing, developing and accessing critical thinking in law”, teaching in Higher Education, 15 (3): 285-297.
41. Jaunzemis D. A; Holzinger J. M; Chan, M. W; Shenoy P. P. (2019), “Evidence Gathering For Hypothesis Resolution Using Judicial Evidential Reasoning”, Information Fusion, 49, 26-45.
42. Jeung, Chang‐Wook; Yoon, Hea Jun; Park, Sunyoung & Jo, Sung Jun (2011), “The contributions of human resource development research across disciplines: A citation and content analysis”, Human Resource Development Quarterly, 22, 87-109.
43. Korobkin, Russell and Ulen, Thomas. (2000), “Law and behavioral science: Removing the rationality assumption from law and economics”, California Law Review, 88 (4):1051-1144. 
44. Kuchinke, K. Peter (2010), “Human development as a central goal for human resource development”, Human Resource Development International, 13:5, 575-585.
45. Kuchinke, Peter K. (2000), “Debates over the nature of HRD: An institutional theory perspective”, Human Resource Development International, 3 (3), 279-283.
46. Lee, M. (2001), “A refusal to define HRD”, Human Resource Development International, 4, 327-341.
47. Li, Jessica (2019), “celebrating the HRD beginning of the next 20 years”, Human Resource Development Internationa, 22 (1):1-3.
48. Lincoln, Yvonna. S., & Lynham, Susan. A. (2011), “Criteria for assessing theory in human resource development from an interpretive perspective”, Human Resource Development International, 14,
3-22.
49. Lohman, Margaret, C. (2010), “An Unexamined Triumvirate: Dogmatism, Problem Solving, and HRD”, Human Resource Development Review, 9 (1): 72-88.
50. Lynham, Susan, A. (2002), “The general method of applied theory building research”, Advances in Developing Human Resources, 4(3): 221-241.
51. Lynham, Susan. A., (2000), “Theory building in the human resource development profession”, Human Resource Development Quarterly, 11, 159-178.
52. Lynham, Susan. A., (2002), “The general method of theory-building research in applied disciplines”, Advances in Developing Human Resources, 4,
221-241.
53. Mauro, Barberis. (2016), “For a Truly Realistic Theory of Law”, Revus, 29, 7-14.
54. McCrudden, Christopher (2006), “Legal research and social sciences”, Law Quarterly Review, 122, 632-650.  
55. McGuire, David. (2011), “Foundations of human resource development”, In D. McGuire & K. M. Jorgensen (Eds.), Human resource development: Theory and practice, (pp. 1-11), SAGE.
56. Mertz, Elizabeth. (2007), the Language of Law School: Learning to “Think Like a Lawyer, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
57. Mintzberg, Henry. (2005), “Developing theory about the development of theory” in K. G. Smith and M. A. Hitt (Eds), Great mind in management, the process of theory development, PP. 352–372. London, Oxford.
58. Mitchell, Terence. R., and James, Lawrence. R. (2001), “Building better theory: Time and the specification of when things happen”, Academy of Management Review, 26, 530–547.
59. Morton, Frederick Lee; Snow, Dave (2018), Law, Politics, and the Judicial Process in Canada, 4th Edition, University of Calgary Press.
60. Neuman, W.L. (2007) Basics of Social Research Methods: Qualitative and Quantitative Approaches. 2nd Edition, Allyn and Bacon, Boston.
61. Novak, Marko (2013) “Ideal Types of Law from the Perspective of Psychological Typology”, Revus, 19, 205-232.
62. Patton, Lydia (2012), “Experiment and theory building”, Syntheses; 184 (3), 235–246.
63. Posner, Richard A. (2010), How Judges Think; Harvard University Press, Reprint edition.
64. Reeves, Anthony R. (2010), “Do Judges Have an Obligation to Enforce the Law? Moral Responsibility and Judicial-Reasoning”, Law and Philosophy, 29(2), 159-187.
65. Rescher, Nicholas. (2005), Reason and reality: realism and idealism in pragmatic perspective, Lanham, MD: Rowman and little field.
66. Roach Anleu, Sharyn L. (2000), Law and Social Change, London: SAGE Publications.
67. Ross, Catharine; Lynn, Nichol; Elliott, Carole; Sambrook, Sally; Stewart, Jim (2019), “the role of HRD in bridging the research-practice gap: the case of learning and development”, Human Resource Development International, 23 (2): 108-124.
68. Rubin, Edward. (1992), “On beyond Truth: A Theory for Evaluating Legal Scholarship”, California Law Review, 80 (4): 889-964. 
69. Rumble, Wilfrid. E. (1968), American Legal Realism: Skepticism, Reform, and the Judicial Process, Ithaca: Cornell University Press.
70. Ruona, Wendy. E. A. (2000), “Core beliefs in human resource development: A journey for the profession and its professionals”, Advances in Developing Human Resources, 7, 1-27.
71. Ruona, Wendy. E. A., & Lynham, Susan. A. (2004), “A philosophical framework for thought and practice in human resource development”, Human Resource Development International, 7(2), 151-165.
72. Ruona, Wendy. E. (2016), “Evolving human resource development”, Advances in Developing Human Resources, 18, 551-565.
73. Sullivan, William M., Colby, Anne, Wegner, Judith Welch, Bond, Lloyd and Shulman, Lee S. (2007) Educating Lawyers: Preparation for the Profession of Law 1st Edition, Jossey-Bass.
74. Sambrook, Sally. (2008), “Critical HRD: A concept analysis”, Personnel Review, 38, 61-73.
75. Schauer, Frederick (2012), Thinking Like A Lawyer: A New Introduction to Legal Reasoning, Harvard University Press.
76. Seo, Jaekyo; Bum, KiNoh; Ardichvili, Alexandre (2019), “Theory Building and Testing in HRD: Current Advancements and Future Directions”, Human Resource Development Review, Vol 18, No 4, pp 411-436.
77. Shapiro, Scott J. (2013), Legality, Harvard University Press.
78. Siems, Mathias. M. (2008), “Legal Originality”, Oxford Journal of Legal Studies, 28 (1): 147-164.
79. Siems, Mathias. M., (2009), “the Taxonomy of Interdisciplinary Legal Research: Finding the Way Out Of the Desert”, Journal of Commonwealth Law and Legal Education, 7 (1): 5-17.
80. Siems, Mathias M., (2007), “Legal origins: Reconciling law & finance and comparative law”, McGill Law Journal, 52 (1): 55-81.
81. Solan, Lawrence M. (1993), the Language of Judges, Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
82. Southern, Stephen; Devlin, James  (2010), “Theory Development: A Bridge between Practice and Research”, the Family Journal, 18 (1): 84-87.
83. Spaak, Torben (2008), “Realism about the Nature of Law”, Ratio Juris, 30 (1): 75-104.
84. Spaak, Torben (2008), “Relativism in Legal Thinking”, Ratio Juris, 21 (1):157-171.
85. Sullivan, William M.; Anne Colby; Judith Welch Wegner; Lloyd Bond and Lee S. Shulman. (2007), Educating Lawyers: Preparation for the Profession of Law, San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
86. Swanson, R. A., & Holton, III, E. F., (2008), Foundations of human resource development (2nd Ed), San Francisco, CA: Berrett-Koehler Publishers.
87. Swanson, R. A., and Chermack, T. J., (2013), Theory building in applied disciplines, San Francisco, CA: Berrett–Koehler.
88. Szabo, Mark (2010), “Design Thinking in Legal Practice Management”, Design Management Review, 21 (3): 44-46.
89. Torraco, Richard J. & Lundgren, Henriette (2019), What HRD “Is Doing? What HRD Should be doing: The Case for Transforming HRD”, Human Resource Development Review, Article first published online.
90. Torraco, Richard J. (2002), “Research methods for theory building in applied disciplines: A comparative analysis”, Advances in Developing Human Resources, 4, 355-376.
91. Torraco, Richard J., (2005), “Human resource development transcends disciplinary boundaries”, Human Resource Development Review, 4, 251-253.
92. Tullar; William L., (1991), “Theory development in human resource management”, Human Resource Management Review, 1 (4): 317-323.
93. Turner, John R.; Baker, Rose; Kellner, Frank (2018), “Theoretical Literature Review: Tracing the Life Cycle of a Theory and Its Verified and Falsified Statements”, Human Resource Development Review, 17 (1), 34-61.
94. Turnbull, Barbara (2002) Program Theory Building: A Strategy for Deriving Cumulative Evaluation Knowledge, American Journal of Evaluation, Vol 23, No 3, pp: 275-290.
95. Van de Ven, A. H. (2003). Theory building and research design. University of Minnesota.
96. Varga, Csaba (1998), the Paradigms of Legal Thinking; Director of the Institute for Legal Philosophy, Pázmány Péter Catholic University of Hungary.
97. Vick, Douglas W. (2004), “Interdisciplinary and the discipline of law”, Journal of Law and Society, 31(2), 163-193.
98. Wang, Jia (2019a), “Enhancing Research Significance by Addressing “Why”, Human Resource Development Review, 18 (3): 291-293.
99. Wang, Jia (2019b), “Becoming a Responsible Writer”, Human Resource Development Review, 18 (2):167-172.
100. Weinstein, Ian (2003), “Don't Believe Everything You Think: Cognitive Bias in Legal Decision Making”, Clinical L. Rev. 783; Fordham Law Legal Studies Research Paper, No. 2779670, Available at: http://ir.lawnet .fordham .edu /faculty–scholarship/422.
101. Williams, Jannine & Mavin, Sharon (2014), “Progressing diversity in HRD theory and practice”, Human Resource Development Review, 13, 127-132.
102. Wong  Y. Jia (2008) Theory of Ground Vehicles, John Wiley & Sons, ISBN: 0470170387, 9780470170380.

Files

Share

How to cite

Statistics